The Appellant, who was self-represented, applied to amend her Application in which she sought to introduce new evidence on Appeal. The Appellant applied by way of request in a letter to the Case Management Officer. The letter did not explicitly detail what type of evidence the Appellant proposed to introduce, but the evidence seemed to relate to an expert report. The letter also attached an email exchange with the Respondent’s counsel, who reserved their right to cross-examine the possible expert on his credentials and report. The Appellant expressed the difficulty she was having with the process, the Rules, and the Court requirements. Watson J.A. noted that, although the Appellant expressed these troubles, she clearly understood the concept of introducing new evidence on Appeal.

Watson J.A. then referred to Rule 14.38(2)(b), which provides that a panel of three Justices of the Court of Appeal, as opposed to a single Appellate Justice, must hear an Application for new evidence on Appeal, unless the Court of Appeal directs otherwise. Watson J.A. held that the Appellant’s letter requesting to introduce new evidence on Appeal was not a proper Application, and that the Appellant would have to file a supplementary Application consistent with Rule 14.38(2)(b). Watson J.A. gave the Appellant guidance for the Application requirements, and further directed that the Application had to address the criteria for admission of new evidence, the test for which is outlined in the case of Palmer v The Queen, 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 759. The Court instructed that the Appellant had 30 days to make a supplementary Application to introduce new evidence on Appeal.